Income Tax

Addition confirmed for non filing of affidavit stating that assessee had not agreed for addition during assessment proceedings

Addition confirmed for non filing of affidavit stating that the assessee had not agreed for the addition during the assessment proceedings as stated in assessment order

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2452 (2018) 08 ITAT

The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by CIT(A) in confirming disallowance of interest and PPF interest expenses.

The assessee had filed return of income electronically. Being a survey case, the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed interest and PPF expenses against the disclosure of income during the survey.

The AO was of the view that since the disclosure was over and above regular income earned by the assessee, no expenses could be claimed out of the said undisclosed income. It was recorded by the AO in the assessment order that the issue about disclosure and admissibility of the expenditure had been discussed with the AR of the assessee, and the AR agreed for the addition.

The AO accordingly made an addition.

The CIT(A) observed that as per the assessment order, the AR of the appellant had agreed for the proposed addition during the assessment proceedings. However, the appellant had not made any submission on this account during the appellate proceedings. In absence of any evidences filed, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in making the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

On consideration of the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal observed that authorised representative of the assessee has admitted the proposed adition before the AO. However, no affidavit had been filed before the CIT(A) deposing therein that the AR of the assessee had not admitted the addition before the AO without his permission nor affidavit of the authorized representative had been filed stating therein that he had not agreed to before the AO about the above addition.

Therefore, in view of the concurrent finding of the both the authorities below indicating that this addition was admitted by the assessee, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

No immunity from prosecution u/s 276B merely because TDS was deposited belatedly

Assessee cannot be granted immunity from prosecution u/s 276B for late deposit of TDS merely because ultimately TDS was deposited…

7 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Section 44C applies to exclusive expenditure by head office by non resident assessee – SC

Section 44C applies to exclusive expenditure on head office for the Indian branches incurred by non resident assessee’s. In a…

8 hours ago
  • Insurance

MV Act Compensation to parents of child died is at different footing than disabled child

Compensation under motor vehicle Act to parents of child died attract a less multiplier than from that of a claim…

9 hours ago
  • GST

Extension of time limit for furnishing GSTR 3B under Delhi GST Act 2017

Extension of time limit for furnishing GSTR 3B under Delhi GST Act 2017 Department of Trade and Taxes(Policy and Research…

15 hours ago
  • ICAI

Audit Fee to be received only by digital modes/banking channels -ICAI revises Ethics

Acceptance of Audit Fee only through digital modes or banking channels from 01.04.2026 – ICAI revises Code of Ethics  In…

22 hours ago
  • Service Tax

Demand set aside as assessee for period covered had discharged tax liability under SVLDRS

High Court sets aside demand notices in respect of a period, for which the assessee had discharged tax liability under…

1 day ago